[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Using buildds only (was: Results of the meeting...)

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:31:40PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Please let's not try to solve the problem of sloppy maintainers with a
> (wrong) technical solution. If a maintainer doesn't care for his
> packages, he can screw up a binary upload as well (or even worse than)
> a source upload. If a DD uploads a broken package, he should be told
> so, and we should aim to help him do it better the next time (that's
> what we do in Ubuntu and it works very well).

I think this same argument can be used in favour of binary uploads.
Trust the developer to keep their machine up to date and build working
packages, and tell them when they make a mistake.

I've always found my mistakes are caught by the other buildds.
I don't remember ever uploading a broken i386 deb and source that
produced working debs on other architectures.

There is the possibility that developer builds get extra features
enabled due to other installed libraries etc. This could be checked for
by analysing the packages files for different architectures or similar.

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: